Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management

ISSN: 1936-8623 (Print) 1936-8631 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20

The Effects of Employee Voice and Delight on Job

Satisfaction and Behaviors: Comparison Between
Employee Generations

MiRan Kim, Bonnie J. Knutson & Laee Choi

To cite this article: MiRan Kim, Bonnie J. Knutson & Laee Choi (2015): The Effects
of Employee Voice and Delight on Job Satisfaction and Behaviors: Comparison
Between Employee Generations, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, DOI:
10.1080/19368623.2015.1067665

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2015.1067665

Accepted online: 18 Sep 2015.Published

online: 18 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whmm20

Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 15 October 2015, At: 02:45
 Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 00:1–26, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1936-8623 print/1936-8631 online
DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2015.1067665

The Effects of Employee Voice and Delight on

Job Satisfaction and Behaviors: Comparison
Between Employee Generations

MIRAN KIM and BONNIE J. KNUTSON

The School of Hospitality Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

LAEE CHOI
Department of Retailing and Consumer Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

The need for better understanding of Generation Y (Gen Y) employ-

ees is becoming vital for the success of the hospitality industry. This
study is designed to examine the relationships of employee voice,
delight, satisfaction, loyalty, and turnover intent between Gen Y
employees and older employees within a hospitality business envir-
onment. Two hotels, independently owned and operated in the Mid-
west, were selected for this study; and survey data were collected
through a self-administered paper survey. The findings indicate that
Gen Y employees showed lower values of voice, delight, satisfaction,
and loyalty than did their older counterparts, while their turnover
intent was greater. The findings of this study can provide new and
valuable insights into the understanding of Gen Y employees and
will be useful for managers as it provides timely implications for
developing more effective management strategies and practices.

KEYWORDS behaviors, delight, employee voice, Gen Y, hotel

industry, satisfaction

INTRODUCTION

One of the most vital issues for hospitality managers is attracting and
retaining qualified employees. This issue has gained salience due to

Address correspondence to MiRan Kim, PhD, The School of Hospitality Business, Michigan
State University, 232 Eppley Center, 645 N. Shaw Lane, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. E-mail:
kimmi8@msu.edu

1
 2 M. Kim et al.

hospitality’s challenging work conditions, high employee-turnover rate, and

its prevalence of young employees (Furunes & Mykletun, 2005; Gursoy,
Maier, & Chi, 2008). Of all the age groups comprising the U.S. workforce,
the highest percentage (28%) belongs to Generation Y (Gen Y) employees
(U. S. Census Bureau, 2011). Gen Y employees are now gradually sup-
planting baby boomers and Generation Xers (Gen Xers) in management
positions (Lyons, Quinn, & Sumsion, 2005). If the hospitality industry is to
continue to grow and succeed, it needs to understand the characteristics of
these Gen Y employees (Barron, 2008). Current management, however,
has shown signs of being ineffective or slow at adopting new strategies to
manage Gen Y employees (Cairncross & Buultjens, 2007; Timo & David-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

son, 2005).
The data collected thus far on Gen Y employees indicate that they differ
markedly from previous generations in their work values, attitudes, and
behaviors (Barron, 2008; McGuire, By, & Hutchings, 2007; Solnet & Hood,
2008). Their parents, the baby boomers, raised Gen Yers in such a way that
Gen Yers see their opinions as being important; indeed, they expect to have a
stake in outcomes (Josiam et al., 2009; Lowe, Levitt, & Wilson, 2008). More-
over, Gen Y employees are more inclined to do meaningful work than focus
on profit alone (Alati, 2004; Allen, 2004; Broadbridge, Maxwell, & Ogden,
2007).
However, most previous studies have consisted of conceptual or qua-
litative studies (e.g., interview, focus group). To some extent, they are
repetitive without revealing a deeper understanding regarding the under-
lying differences between Gen Y employees and older employees in terms
of employee attitude and behavior variables (e.g., Barron, Maxwell, Broad-
bridge, & Ogden, 2007; Chen & Choi, 2008; Josiam et al., 2009). Thus, there
is recognition in the hospitality industry of the demand to investigate how
attitudes and behaviors of Gen Y employees differ from those of older
generations.
In attempt to fill this research gap, this study examines the relational
differences of employee voice, employee delight, satisfaction, loyalty, and
turnover intent between Gen Y employees and older employees. The study
focuses on employee voice, one of the most important communication stra-
tegies (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003), and employee delight, a new para-
digm of employee service applied to human resources management. The
twofold purpose of this study is to (a) compare mean differences between
Gen Y employees and older employees regarding their employee voice,
delight, satisfaction, loyalty, and turnover intent; and (b) compare Gen Y
and older employees in a hospitality business environment as a way of
examining the causal relationships among employee voice, delight, satisfac-
tion, loyalty, and turnover intent. This study aims to provide insight into Gen Y
employees and implications for managers as they develop their strategies and
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 3

practices that will better benefit the hospitality industry (Gursoy et al., 2008;
Kogan, 2007).

LITERATURE REVIEW
Characteristics of Gen Y
Clearly defined age ranges of generations are difficult to establish. Never-
theless, the term Gen Y—also referred to as millennials, Internet generation,
and nexters (Cairncross & Buultjens, 2007; Gursoy et al., 2008)—broadly refers
to those individuals born beginning in the early 1980s to the early 2000s
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

(Gursoy et al., 2008). Gen Yers are not unlike their predecessors in that they
tend to have a strong sense of morality, to be patriotic, to be willing to fight for
freedom, and to be sociable (Brown, 2004; Eisner, 2005; Lowe et al., 2008;
Martin, 2005).
Gen Xers and baby boomers grew up in conditions of high divorce rates
and/or an increase in dual-income families. A significant proportion (about
one third) of Gen Yers were raised in single-parent households, and as a result
many children of this generation acted as both child and parent (Martin, 2005).
Such family structures have affected their tendency to be active in family
decisions, to be self-reliant with high self-esteem, and to be independent
(Flowers, Jones, & Hogan, 2010; Howe & Strauss, 2007; Hurst & Good,
2009; Meier & Crocker, 2010; Yeaton, 2008). Gen Yers are also naturally
more technologically savvy than older generations. Indeed, since birth many
of them have been exposed to personal computers, mobile devices, high-
speed Internet, and wireless networks, as well as social networking sites
(Lowe et al., 2008; Meier & Crocker, 2010; Yeaton, 2008).
Gen Y employees are less favorably inclined toward hierarchy. They
prefer an inclusive style of management to micromanagement. Their rela-
tionship to their parents, the baby boomers, is more peer-to-peer than
parent-to-child, reflecting on their more preferred equality-based manage-
ment. This mindset may have been a result of their parents, as they were the
ones who adopted a more inclusive style of parenting, hoping to build self-
esteem in an effort not to raise their children as they had been raised (Lowe
et al., 2008).
Moreover, Gen Y employees are more likely to prefer to be treated as
partners by their organizations (Josiam et al., 2009; Lowe et al., 2008). They
tend to be aggressive regarding their pay package, including tangible and
intangible rewards. They are, however, strongly motivated by meaningful and
innovative work. In other words, they are not interested in merely making
money, but rather enjoy contributing to a particular work. Indeed, Gen Y
employees tend to be more altruistic, socially conscious, and volunteer-
minded (Alati, 2004; Allen, 2004; Broadbridge et al., 2007). Gen Y employees
are likely to get clear and specific directions in terms of concrete goals and
 4 M. Kim et al.

deadlines from their managers, and they are more productive and efficient
when managers give clear and specific instructions. As a result, their managers
model the expected behavior (Martin, 2005). Therefore, an important deter-
minant in an employee’s job performance can be reducing role ambiguity
(Johnston, Parasuraman, Futrell, & Black, 1990; H. Kim, Knight, & Crutsinger,
2009). Otherwise, role ambiguity could lead to Gen Y employees’ experien-
cing higher job related stress and tension (H. Kim et al., 2009).

Research of Generation Y Employees in the Hospitality Industry

In the hospitality industry, the understanding of work attitudes and behaviors
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

of Gen Y employees is crucial in developing effective managerial strategies to

increase their productivity, morale, and retention. A topic of great interest and
discussion are Gen Y employees’ work characteristics, perceptions, attitudes,
and behaviors (e.g., Chacko, Williams, & Schaffer, 2012; Chen & Choi, 2008;
Gursoy et al., 2008; Josiam et al., 2009). As shown in Table 1, most of the
previous studies are given to qualitative research conducted through inter-
views and/or case studies or conceptual studies regarding broad characteris-
tics, attitudes, and behaviors of Gen Y employees. Some studies, for instance,

TABLE 1 Generation Y employee research in the hospitality industry

Study type Authors Study setting Study findings/discussions

Qualitative Barron, Maxwell, -Generation Y Generation Y students’ hospitality

research with Broadbridge, and students work experience and career
case study Ogden (2007) perception
Conceptual study Barron (2008) N/A Issues and challenges of
hospitality education and
industry for Generation Y
Qualitative Cairncross and -Hospitality Employer attitudes to Generation
research with Buultjens (2007) industry Y employees
focus group managers
discussion
Conceptual and Chacko et al. (2012) N/A Work values and attitudes of
theoretical study Generation Y
Quantitative study Chen and Choi Generation Y Work values of Generation Y
(2008) managers compared to baby boomers
and Generation X
Qualitative Gursoy et al. (2008) Hotel industry Generational differences on work
research with employees values
focus group and managers
discussion
Quantitative study Josiam et al. (2009) -Generation Y Work attitudes of Generation Y
college students prior to organization
students entry
Conceptual and Solnet and Hood N/A Work value, attitude, and
theoretical study (2008) behavior of Generation Y
compared to other generations
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 5

have examined differences in work values, attitudes, and behaviors between

Gen Y employees and older generation employees (Gursoy et al., 2008; Solnet
& Hood, 2008). Other studies have examined work perceptions and expecta-
tions from Gen Y students prior to career entry, discussing the issues and
challenges of hospitality education (Barron, 2008; Josiam et al., 2009). Intrigu-
ingly, Cairncross and Buultjens (2007) found that hotel managers’ attitudes
toward Gen Y employees were often unsatisfactory owing to the employees’
lack of communication skills. In the hospitality industry, despite the differ-
ences between Gen Y employees and older generation employees having
been researched, empirical investigations are scarce. Thus, the current study
aims to provide such empirical evidence.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

Employee Voice, Delight, Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Turnover Intent

EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB SATISFACTION
Employee voice is defined as proactive and constructive “speaking-up beha-
vior,” in which employees express their ideas, information, and opinions.
Employee voice provides employees the opportunity to communicate their
opinions and instills the belief that their contributions are respected. In addi-
tion, encouraging employee voice can result in the employee having an
increased sense of responsibility to organizational goals (Varey & Lewis,
1999). When employees are allowed to challenge others and make sugges-
tions, they tend to have a positive motive for making contributions to the
organization; as a result it should be emphasized as one of the most important
internal communication strategies (Van Dyne et al., 2003; Van Dyne, Cum-
mings, & McLean Parks, 1995; Zhou & George, 2001).
Positive voice behavior is primarily used for benefitting the organization
as a whole, making contributions to the organization, and proposing ways to
improve individual or organizational functioning (Dutton & Ashford, 1993;
Van Dyne et al., 2003). By facilitating the constructive discussion of a problem
and solving it in a positive manner, positive voice makes it possible to share
mutual feelings in order to improve the organization (Hibbard, Kumar, &
Stern, 2001). Employee satisfaction is often the result of their voices being
properly acknowledged and their opinions being respected by their place of
employment. Positive voice may also be applied to customer service interac-
tions (Lings, 2004) and their dedication to organizational goals (Patah, Zain,
Abdullah, & Radzi, 2009).
Eisner (2005) suggested that Gen Yers have more often been nurtured by
working moms and have experienced higher levels of poverty, divorce among
parents, and being raised by a single parent. Gen Yers have been taught by
their parents to express their voice, ideas, and opinions (Barron, 2008; Flowers
et al., 2010). These factors have led Gen Yers to be active, at an early age,
specifically in participating in family decision-making (Eisner, 2005). Thus,
 6 M. Kim et al.

Gen Y employees are also inclined to partake in organizational decision-

making processes and expect to be given the chance to contribute to their
organization. Additionally, compared to other generations, they place a high
value on freedom, flexibility, and responsibility in their job (Martin, 2005).
Generally outspoken in communication and workplace involvement, Gen
Yers are not shy about having their opinions known (Francis-Smith, 2004;
Hurst & Good, 2009; Josiam et al., 2009; Lowe et al., 2008). Based on the
review of the relevant literature, the following hypothesis is proposed and
tested:

H1: Gen Y employees will differ significantly from older employees regard-
ing the relationship between their employee voice and satisfaction.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

EMPLOYEE DELIGHT AND JOB SATISFACTION

Employees in the hospitality industry often interact with customers. To
improve those interactions, it is vital that management understand employee
emotions. Emotions call forth one’s physiological and behavioral responses,
including how one feels about a certain customer and even how satisfied one
is with one’s job (Bigné, Andreu, & Gnoth, 2005; Chang, 1999). According to
emotional processing mechanisms at work, an accumulation of positive emo-
tional experiences at work influences job satisfaction (Karatepe, 2011; Yavas,
Karatepe, & Babakus, 2013). Liu, Prati, Perrewé, and Brymer (2010) examined
the direct relationship between employee emotion in the work place and
employee job satisfaction. They found that positive emotional experiences
such as being excited and proud are related to higher job satisfaction. In turn,
they discovered that negative emotional experiences such as being upset and
nervous are associated with lower job satisfaction.
The delight emotion in particular is easily accessible to cognitive opera-
tions and to current evaluations as it involves a higher level of performance
assessment (Berman, 2005; Bowden & Dagger, 2011; Finn, 2005; M. Kim,
Vogt, & Knutson, 2013; Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997; Schümmer, 2007; Torres
& Kline, 2006). Organizational behavior literature offers little research on the
concept of delight, though customer delight has recently gained substantial
attention in marketing literature. Delight is defined as an emotion that is a
mixture of great joy and high arousal (Berman, 2005; Bowden & Dagger, 2011;
Finn, 2005; M. Kim et al., 2013; Oliver et al., 1997). It arises when people are
joyfully surprised in reaction to the disconfirmation of an expected situation
(Bigné et al., 2005; M. Kim et al., 2013). By “wowing” people and providing
them with unexpected fascination, delight may create further emotional ben-
efits (Oliver et al., 1997). According to Westbrook and Oliver’s study (1991),
customers who showed higher levels of surprise and joy were more satisfied
than others who did not.
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 7

Lowe et al. (2008) suggested that a critical role in retaining and motivating
Gen Y employees exists in a culture of pursuing amusement, delightfulness,
and freshness at work. After all, Gen Yers, more than other generations, seek
fun, excitement, a balanced life, and family, as well as supportive manage-
ment who values their ideas and creativity (Barron, 2008; Broadbridge et al.,
2007; Josiam et al., 2009; Szamosi, 2006). Fun and delightful experiences at
work are beneficial not only to employees but also to organizations because
they decrease the work stress of employees, which, in turn, increases
employee performance and quality of work (Lowe et al., 2008). Gen Y
employees also want to be part of an innovative and energetic organization;
they enjoy having immediate feedback, gratification, and rewards for their
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

performance (Broadbridge et al., 2007; Flowers et al., 2010; Martin, 2005).

Further, monetary value seems a less effective motivator for Gen Y employ-
ees. Rather they tend to value more balanced lives and families, preferring
flexibility in their work life since the most important elements of their lives are
their families, friends, and personal lives (Barron, 2008; Hurst & Good, 2009;
Yeaton, 2008). Gen Yers thrive on change and uncertainty, due to their
aversion of micromanagement (Martin, 2005). Previous research from market-
ing literature has found that customers of younger generations use products
and services more for emotional benefit and social communication than those
of other generations (Kumar & Lim, 2008). Moreover, customers of the
younger generation tend to be more emotionally attached to products and
services than customers of older generations, who respond to the utilitarian
benefits of products and services (Ito & Okabe, 2005; Moschis, Lee, Mathur, &
Strautman, 2000; Pagani, 2004).
Therefore, it is logical to assume that delightful work experiences that
yield emotional benefits in creative and innovative ways can increase the job
satisfaction of Gen Y employees. Although the relationship of employee
delight and job satisfaction between Gen Y employees and older employees
has yet to be examined, the following hypothesis is proposed based on the
review of the relevant literature:

H2: The relationship of employee delight and satisfaction will differ sig-
nificantly between Gen Y employees and older employees.

EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION, LOYALTY, AND TURNOVER INTENT

Employee job satisfaction is defined as employees’ state of emotion and
affective responses toward their jobs (Back, Lee, & Abbott, 2011; Williams &
Podsakoff, 1989). It also refers to positive feelings, beliefs, and attitudes about
the current job and work place (Aziri, 2011; Long & Thean, 2011). Satisfied
employees are more likely to stay with an organization and engage in positive
word-of-mouth actions (Back et al., 2011; Herington & Weaven, 2009; Lee,
Murrmann, Murrmann, & Kim, 2010).
 8 M. Kim et al.

Employee loyalty is defined as an employee’s identification with, invol-

vement in, and commitment to organizations by being motivated to perform
beyond expectations Grønholdt & Martensen, 2001). Employee loyalty is
recognized as key to an organization’s success, as it is positively related to
organizational performance (Silvestro, 2002). Many studies suggest that
employee loyalty is strongly related to employee job satisfaction (Chang,
Chiu, & Chen, 2003).
Employee turnover intent refers to the subjective estimation of an indivi-
dual regarding the probability of leaving an organization within the near
future (Carmeli & Weisberg, 2006; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). High
employee turnover has a direct impact on a company resulting in low pro-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

ductivity and high cost. Thus, reducing employee turnover rate has consis-
tently been an imperative objective for many organizations (Choi & Dickson,
2009; Simons & Hinkin, 2001).
According to the employee turnover decision process formulated by
Mobley (1977), employees evaluate their present jobs and feel certain degrees
of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. As a consequence of job dissatisfaction, they
may start thinking of quitting. Employees then evaluate the cost of quitting the
job by considering lost work time and travel. If and when they do decide to
quit, they search possible alternatives and compare them with their present
jobs. If the alternatives are more desirable than their present situation, job
withdrawal ensues.
In the hospitality industry, empirical studies have supported the notion
that employee job satisfaction is a significant predictor of employees’ organi-
zational commitment and employees’ turnover intent (e.g., Ghiselli, La Lopa,
& Bai, 2001; Jang & George, 2012; Karatepe, 2011; W. G. Kim & Brymer, 2011;
Lam, Baum, & Pine, 2001; Susskind, Borchgrevink, Michele Kacmar, & Bry-
mer, 2000). For instance, Lam et al. (2001) studied the overall job satisfaction
and turnover intention among Chinese restaurant managers. They found that
managers with higher job satisfaction have a lower inclination to leave. More-
over, they suggest that overall job satisfaction increases when there is an
increase in satisfaction with the work environment, the job itself, and its
rewards. Susskind et al. (2000) explored factors that affect employee job
satisfaction and the relationship between employee job satisfaction and turn-
over intention, using an instance of managers and supervisors working at 11
different hotels. They found that employee job satisfaction was negatively
associated with turnover intention and employee job satisfaction mediated
coworker support, supervisor support, and standards for service on turnover
intention. A study of food service managers, by Ghiselli et al. (2001), found
that managers tended to hold their position longer when they were satisfied
with extrinsic components such as job security and variety. Recent studies
have also supported the inverse relationship between employee job satisfac-
tion and employee turnover intention. W. G. Kim and Brymer (2011) investi-
gated managers of 30 different hotels. Findings suggested that managers who
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 9

had higher job satisfaction tended to hold their position longer and are more
committed to their companies.
Gen Y employees have been found to be less likely to be satisfied with
their jobs and, when they are not satisfied, much more likely to leave an
organization (Barron, 2008; Eisner, 2005; Lowe et al., 2008). In addition,
neither expecting long-term employment nor being overly loyal to any orga-
nization, Gen Y employees tend to consider job security a less important
factor (Broadbridge et al., 2007; Yeaton, 2008). Rather, they are more open
to leaving for meaningful and challenging work for self-development (Eisner,
2005; Hurst & Good, 2009; Lowe et al., 2008). Therefore, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

H3: The relationship of employee satisfaction and loyalty will be signifi-

cantly different between Gen Y employees and older employees.
H4: The relationship of employee satisfaction and turnover intent will
be significantly different between Gen Y employees and older
employees.

METHODOLOGY
Sampling and Data Collection
In order to examine the proposed model, two hotels were selected. To
avoid corporate brand effect on employees’ overall perceptions or attitudes
toward their work experiences, such as satisfaction and loyalty, the study
selected independently owned and operated hotels in the Midwest. These
hotels were also readily available for recruitment for the study. This con-
venient sampling may then be unrepresentative of the entire population of
hotel employees; however, as the two hotels include a substantial portion
of female and younger employees, the employees are a relatively ideal
representation of the general population of hotel employees (U. S. Census
Bureau, 2011; Woods, 1997). The two hotels show similarity with respect to
the price and quality of their services, providing full services that include
restaurants, conference rooms, banquet halls, and fitness facilities.
Prior to data collection, a description of this study and the data collection
instruments were reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of
a major research university in the Midwest United States. Then, a researcher
officially contacted the general managers and human resources managers in
order to explain the purposes of the study and to inquire about their will-
ingness to allow their employees’ to take part in this study. Given the consent
of managers, employees were asked to voluntarily participate in this study.
From April to May 2012, survey data were collected through a self-
administered paper survey. A survey package including a letter of invitation
 10 M. Kim et al.

written by the general manager of each hotel and a professor, a questionnaire,

and a prepaid return envelope was delivered to the human resources manager
of each hotel. To prompt employees to participate in the study, two reminder
e-mails were sent to employees by the human resources manager of each
hotel. Respondents who completed the survey were given an opportunity to
win one of five $50 gift cards from a local grocery store.
A total of 341 respondents completed questionnaires, yielding a
45.7% response rate. Based on their age ranges, survey respondents
were divided into Gen Y employees (n = 174) and older employees
(n = 156). Because 11 employees provided no age information, they
were eliminated when the data was analyzed. To ascertain whether
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

there were significant differences between the two sets of data concerning
the demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, age range, percent of work-
ing time in contact with customers, and income), demographic features of
the employees from the two hotels were closely compared. The partici-
pant demographics showed that the majority of the participants were
female (Gen Y: 64%, older: 73%). Gen Y employees were considered to
be within the age range of 19–29, and approximately 70% of the older
employees were over 40 years old. On average, Gen Y employees spent
approximately 70% of their working time in contact with customers, older
employees spent approximately 60% of their working time in contact with
customers. The majority of respondents (Gen Y: 68%, older: 89%) were
full-time employees. Approximately 19% of Gen Y employees had an
annual income over $20,000, while approximately 60% of older employ-
ees had an annual income over $20,000.

Measurement
The questionnaire instrument consisted of two sections, designed to take
about 10–15 minutes to complete. The first section was designed to under-
stand employees’ work experiences and the second section asked for their
sociodemographic information. Survey items for each construct were devel-
oped referring to previous studies. Five items were adapted to measure
employee delight (Finn, 2005; M. Kim et al., 2013; Kumar, Olshavsky, &
King, 2001; Oliver et al., 1997). Employee voice was measured through six
questions (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Employee job satisfaction was mea-
sured with six items (Valentine, Godkin, & Lucero, 2002), and a four-item
scale regarding employee turnover intention was drawn from Cole and Bruch
(2006) and Jang and George (2012). In addition, based on the measures of
Bloemer and Odekerken-Schröder (2006), four items were used to measure
employee loyalty. All measures used 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly dis-
agree; 5 = strongly agree).
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 11

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Testing of Reliability and Validity
To examine the item reliability, construct reliability, convergent validity, and
discriminant validity, the current study employed confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) using AMOS 18.0. According to Gerbing and Anderson (1988), items that
had poor loading values (<.60) to the underlying construct were eliminated from
further analyses. Table 2 indicates a final set of the scale items that measured
each construct along with the item reliability (IR), construct reliability (CR), and
the average variance extracted (AVE). The model fit was considered acceptable
as a satisfactory fit for the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI),
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; χ2[176] = 363.428,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

CFI = .965, TLI = .958, RMSEA = .056, SRMR = .044). Moreover, the construct
reliability of each construct showed a range of .83–.94, satisfying the criteria
(>.70), and the AVE for all constructs ranged from .61 to .74, which is greater
than .5, and thus proves convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In
addition, the squared correlation coefficients (SIC) between constructs did not
exceed the AVE of each construct, demonstrating satisfactory discriminant valid-
ity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Consequently, the overall measurement properties
showed acceptable and adequate levels (see Table 3).

Control Factors
Some researchers have suggested that work status may influence employee
perceptions and attitudes (e.g., perceived organizational support and commit-
ment) toward the organization (Conway & Briner, 2002; Gakovic & Tetrick,
2003). Also, gender may impact employee job satisfaction and performance
(Babin & Boles, 1998; H. Kim et al., 2009). Therefore, this study added to the
hypothesized model two control variables: work status (part-time/full-time) and
gender (male/female), as these factors may have an impact on the model. The
model was estimated before and after the addition of the control variables. The
model fit was acceptable without the control variables (χ2[345] = 605.694,
CFI = .947, TLI = .941, RMSEA = .048) and was also acceptable after the addition
of the control variables (χ2[411] = 692.210, CFI = .943, TLI = .929, RMSEA = .048).

Testing of Measurement Model

A two-group invariance model was used to test the similarity of the proposed
research model between the two groups of Gen Y employees (n = 174) and
older employees (n = 156). For structural comparisons between the two
groups, the model was specified to be the invariance between groups. As
shown in Table 4, configural invariance model was acceptable with the
adequate level of the model fit (χ2[376] = 605.056, CFI = .953, TLI = .937,
 12 M. Kim et al.

TABLE 2 Measurement items and reliability

Construct and indicators IR CR AVE

Delight
When I received an unexpected reward, benefit, support, or promotion from this
current job:
D1. I felt delighted. .60 .89 .74
D2. I felt overjoyed. .91
D3. I felt gleeful. .71
Voice
V1. I develop and make recommendations to my supervisor concerning issues .59 .94 .66
that affect my work.
V2. I speak up and encourage others in my work unit to get involved in issues .70
that affect our work.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

V3. I communicate my opinions about work issues to others in my works unit, .53
even if their opinions are different and they disagree with me.
V4. I keep well informed about issues at work where my opinions can be .75
useful.
V5. I get involved in issues that affect the quality of life in my department. .78
V6. I am encouraged to, and to speak up to my supervisors with ideas for new .60
projects or changes in procedures at work.
Satisfaction
S1. Overall, I am satisfied with my present job. .72 .94 .71
S2. I am proud to tell people that I am part of this company. .71
S3. I am happy working with this company. .82
S4. This is the best organization for me to work for right now. .62
S5. I consider my job to be rather pleasant. .70
S6. I find real enjoyment in my work. .68
Turnover intention
T1. I intend to look for a job outside of this company within the next year. .59 .83 .61
T2. I often think about quitting my job at this company. .64
T3. I intend to leave this company in the next few months. .61
Loyalty
L1. I would like to stay with this company in the future. .72 .83 .71
L2. I would not change immediately to another company if I got a job offer. .70
Model fit: χ2(176) = 363.428, CFI = .965, TLI = .958, RMSEA = .056, SRMR = .044
Note. IR = item reliability; CR = construct reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; CFI = Comparative Fit
Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized
root mean square residual.

TABLE 3 Convergent and discriminant validity

Employee Employee Employee Employee Employee

Constructs voice delight satisfaction loyalty turnover intent

Employee voice .660 .232 .253 .325 .092

Employee delight .738 .257 .309 .091
Employee satisfaction .707 .630 .449
Employee loyalty .710 .483
Employee turnover intent .613
Note. The numbers in diagonal line are the average variance extracted by each construct, and the numbers
above the diagonal are the squared correlation coefficients between the constructs.
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 13

TABLE 4 Measurement model results (Generation Y employees and older employees)

χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf CFI ΔCFI TLI RMSEA

Configural invariance 605.056 376 .953 .937 .043 (.037~.051)

Full metric invariance 646.626 391 41.570 15 .948 −.005 .949 .045 (.039~.053)
Partial metric invariance 612.009 383 6.953 7 .938 0 .954 .043 (.037~.051)
Intercept invariance 749.389 403 137.380 20 .932 −.006 .931 .051 (.040~.053)

RMSEA = .043). For the next step, we estimated the full metric invariance
model, which shows evidence of the same constructs in two groups being
measured (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). The fit indices of this model
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

showed adequate levels, indicating a reasonably good fit. However, the chi-
square difference was significant between configural invariance model and
full metric invariance model (Δχ2 = 41.570, Δdf = 15, p < .001). According to
the recommended procedures of Byrne (1998) and Yoo (2002), the invariance
constraints were released step by step on the basis of modification indices.
Thus, a partial metric invariance model was supported with some parameter
changes and the chi-square difference between the configural invariance
model and the partial metric invariance model was insignificant (Δχ2 = 6.953,
Δdf = 7, p > .001), as shown in Table 4.
The intercept invariance model was also estimated, as intercepts of
observed items were constrained to be equal. Even though the result revealed
a satisfactory model fit, the fit difference was significant between the partial
metric invariance model and intercept invariance model (Δχ2 = 137.380,
Δdf = 20, p < .001). According to Cheung and Rensvold (2002) and Chen,
Sousa, and West (2005), a difference of more than .01 in the CFI indicates a
meaningful change in the model fit when testing measurement invariance.
However, the difference in CFI between the partial metric invariance model
and the intercept invariance model was less than .01 (ΔCFI = −.006), indicating
that no substantial change existed between the two models. Thus, intercept
invariance model was supported.
Before testing the proposed hypotheses, we investigated whether there
were differences in mean values of each construct between Gen Y employees
and older employees. As shown in Table 5, in terms of two antecedents (i.e.,
employee voice and employee delight), the mean differences between the
two groups were statistically significant (employee voice: t = 4.26, p < .001;
employee delight: t = 2.56, p < .05). Comparison of latent means indicated that
delight and voice of older employees were significantly greater than those of
Gen Y employees. Additionally, both Gen Y and older employees were
mostly satisfied with their jobs (MgenY = 3.91; Molder = 4.24), though here a
statistically significant mean difference (p < .001) separated the two groups. As
one of the outcomes in the current study, employee loyalty was relatively high
for both groups, indicating a significant difference between Gen Y and older
 14 M. Kim et al.

TABLE 5 Mean and latent mean comparison

Generation Y Older employees

employees (n = 174) (n = 156)

Latent variables Latent M M (SD) Latent M M (SD) t test

Employee voice 0 3.86 (.86) .18 4.25 (.78) 4.26***

Employee delight 0 3.87 (.81) .45 4.18 (.96) 2.56**
Employee satisfaction 0 3.91 (.86) .33 4.24 (.82) 3.61***
Employee loyalty 0 3.80 (.83) .42 4.23 (.82) 4.79***
Employee turnover intent 0 2.63 (1.09) −.69 2.00 (1.06) −5.31***
**p < .05. ***p < .01.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

employees (p < .001). For older employees, however, the mean of employee
turnover intent was significantly lower than that of Gen Y employees
(MgenY = 2.63; Molder = 2.00) and the mean difference between the two groups
was also statistically significant (t = −5.31, p < .001).

Testing of the Structural Model: Hypotheses Testing

To test the proposed hypotheses, all paths between the two groups (Gen Y
employees and older employees) were estimated without constraints as the
baseline model. The model was then compared with a structural invariance
model that constrained all paths to be equal between groups. Comparison
between the two models revealed that all paths were the same between the
two groups (Δχ2 = 18.07, Δdf = 4, p > .001).
Table 6 shows the results of the structural model for both Gen Y
employees and older employees. All the coefficients were significant at a
significance level of .05. Both employee delight and voice had a positive
impact on employee job satisfaction; and, in turn, employee satisfaction
positively influenced employee loyalty but negatively influenced employee
turnover intent.
For hypotheses, we first predicted that the effect of employee voice and
delight on satisfaction would differ between Gen Y employees and older
employees. The result of analysis revealed that the path to link employee
voice and employee satisfaction was higher in older employees than in Gen Y
employees (Gen Y employees: β = .169; older employees: β = .548;
Δχ2 = 12.398, p < .000), supporting H1. The effect, however, of employee
delight on employee satisfaction was greater in Gen Y employees than in
older employees (Gen Y employees: β = .409; older employees: β = .187;
Δχ2 = 5.841, p < .05), proving that there was a significant difference between
the two groups (supporting H2). Additionally, this study hypothesized that the
relationship between employee job satisfaction and two outcomes—
employee loyalty and employ turnover intent—would be different across
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 15

TABLE 6 Structural equation model estimation: two-group path comparison

Generation Y Older
Path employees employees Δχ2a p-value

Employee Satisfaction ← Employee Voice .169** .548*** 12.398 .000

Employee Satisfaction ← Employee Delight .409*** .187** 5.841 .016
Employee Loyalty ← Employee Satisfaction .707*** .908*** 3.155 .076
Employee Turnover Intent ← Employee −.696*** −.635*** .395 .530
Satisfaction
All path constraints 23.222 .010
Covariance: Employee Delight—Employee .421*** .490***
Voice
Model fit χ2(411) = 692.210, CFI = .943, TLI = .929,
RMSEA = .048
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

a
The chi-square difference is inferred from the difference in model fit when a model with the parameters
constrained to be equal compares to a model in which they are released differently.
**p < .05. ***p < .01.

different generational groups of employees. As shown in Table 6, the results

of the chi-square difference tests supported the idea that between Gen Y
employees and older employees no significant difference existed in the
relationships between employee satisfaction and loyalty, although the effect
of satisfaction on loyalty was greater in older employees than in Gen Y
employees (Gen Y employees: β = .707; older employees: β = .908; Δχ2 = 3.155,
p = .076). Thus, H3 was not supported. According to the results, however, the
effect of employee satisfaction on turnover intent did not differ between the
two groups (p = .530), even though employee satisfaction was negatively
related to turnover rate for both groups, showing a similar estimated value
(Gen Y employees: β = −.685; older employees: β = −.643). Thus, H4 was not
supported. Figure 1 depicts the hypothesized relationship among constructs
and the results of the structural model for each group.

DISCUSSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The hospitality industry tends to rely heavily on human resources to deliver its
services and products to the customers (Gursoy et al., 2008). This industry is
composed of employees from distinctive generations (e.g., baby boomers and
Gen Y). Given the unique features of the workforce, the hospitality business
industry needs to appreciate the differences in employee values, attitudes, and
behaviors; it also needs to adopt a new paradigm of services in order to
sustain a competitive advantage. The current study offers some important
contributions not only to academic research but also to managerial practices.
 16 M. Kim et al.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

FIGURE 1 Theoretical model—relationships among employee voice, delight, satisfaction,

loyalty, and turnover intent
**p < .05. ***p < .01.

Theoretical Implications
The current study empirically investigated the differences in relationships
among employee delight, voice, satisfaction, loyalty, and turnover intent
between Gen Y employees and older employees. As there are few empiri-
cal studies that examine the relational differences between Gen Y and
older employees, this study can contribute as a foundation to more com-
prehensive research on Gen Y employees by providing valuable insights
regarding the differences in attitudes and behaviors between these two
generations.
Specifically, the findings reveal that Gen Y employees reported lower
values of voice, delight, satisfaction, and loyalty than did their older counter-
parts, while their turnover intent was greater. These results are consistent with
previous studies, which suggest Gen Y employees are less likely to be
satisfied with their jobs and less loyal to an organization (Broadbridge et al.,
2007; Yeaton, 2008). Less willing to do menial and repetitive work, Gen Yers
are more interested in new challenges than employees from older generations
(Broadbridge et al., 2007; Kerslake, 2005; Martin, 2005; Saba, 2006). Moreover,
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 17

they tend to pursue fun, excitement, immediate gratification, and rewards

(Broadbridge et al., 2007; Flowers et al., 2010; Martin, 2005).
In regard to employee voice, the findings of this study showed that the
mean of employee voice for Gen Y employees was lower than that of older
employees. Moreover, the effect of voice on satisfaction for Gen Y was lower
than that of older generation employees. Previous research has argued that
Gen Y employees are not shy about offering their opinions, enjoy engaging in
candid communication, and demand more than other generations (Francis-
Smith, 2004; Josiam et al., 2009; Lowe et al., 2008). Our findings, however,
diverge somewhat from this trend in the literature. This study asked for their
previous actual voice behaviors, including their constructive suggestions or
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

recommendations to their company (hotel) rather than their voicing of perso-

nal desires and/or needs. As they have less experience and knowledge and
fewer skills than that of their older counterparts, they may have fewer ideas or
suggestions for business improvement leaving them with fewer opportunities
to appeal to their managers or company. Furthermore, Gen Y employees may
have less interest in the success and improvement of their company than older
generation employees. Indeed, they are self-focused at work (Eby, Adams,
Russell, & Gaby, 2000) and unwilling to sacrifice their personal lives for the
company, unwilling even to work overtime (Gursoy et al., 2008). Perhaps then
for these reasons, the effect of employee voice on satisfaction for Gen Y
employees is lower than that for older generation employees.
The findings showed that employee delight was an important antecedent
to employee satisfaction for both Gen Y employees and older employees.
Further, employee delight had a greater impact on employee satisfaction for
Gen Y employees than it did for older employees, indicating a statistically
significant difference between the two groups. This result implies that Gen Y
employees are more influenced by emotional episodic factors, such as
employee delight. They are more likely than older generations to be respon-
sive to incidents or events that stimulate an individual’s emotion. Martin (2005)
identified Gen Y as having an “urgent sense of immediacy.” Employee delight
is a kind of emotional state, which occurs when an individual is pleasantly
surprised by unexpected incidents or situations. Thus, even when Gen Y and
older employees face the same stimulus, such as an unanticipated pleasant
incident or event, the sense of immediacy for Gen Y employees may cause
them to respond to the stimulus (delight) by feeling more satisfied than older
generation employees. As the concept of employee delight carries weight in
terms of its influence on employees’ attitudes and behaviors, this finding is
meaningful and contributive to literature.
According to the results, employee satisfaction had, for both groups,
significant influences on employee loyalty. Gursoy et al. (2008) argued that
Gen Y employees do not easily become loyal to any specific company,
whereas older generation employees are very loyal to a company and expect
the company to reciprocate such loyalty. This study supports previous
 18 M. Kim et al.

research, indicating that the loyalty of older generation employees is greater

than that of Gen Y employees (Broadbridge et al., 2007; Yeaton, 2008).
However, this research confirmed that the impact of employee satisfaction
on the loyalty for older generation employees is not significantly different than
that of Gen Y employees.
Lastly, the impact of employee satisfaction on turnover intention did not
differ across the two groups, even though the mean of turnover intent of Gen
Y employees was significantly higher than that of older generation employees.
Gursoy et al. (2008) mentioned that Gen Y employees tend to be impatient,
unlike older generation employees. Gen Y employees may then more easily
decide to switch companies. Our findings, however, imply that if Gen Y
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

employees are satisfied with their job and/or company, they are willing, like
their older generation counterparts, to remain there.

Practical Implications
In addition to the theoretical implications, the results of this study produce
important managerial implications. In a challenging work environment and
with shifting generational demographics of the workforce, the need for better
understanding of Gen Y employees is vital in creating a work environment
that enhances employee satisfaction and retention in the hospitality industry.
More specifically, a multigenerational workforce that works together in the
hospitality industry should be managed harmoniously and successfully. Thus,
it is crucial and vital for practitioners to understand the different perceptions
and attitudes between Gen Y employees and older generation employees. For
this purpose, the current study provides significant managerial implications.
This study found that Gen Y employees, compared to older employees,
have low satisfaction and loyalty. Managers should thus pay more attention to
improving Gen Y employees’ satisfaction and loyalty. It would be useful for
managers to understand what factors affect multigenerational employee satis-
faction and loyalty. This study suggests that employee delight and voice are
directly and positively related to employee satisfaction. As a result, creating a
delightful work environment and giving more opportunities to employees to
voice their opinions are essential to attracting and retaining employees of Gen
Y group. Moreover, many companies have realized the importance of creating
a fun and delightful workplace to increase productivity and customer satisfac-
tion and to reduce work stress (Karl, Peluchette, Hall-Indiana, & Harland,
2005; Lowe et al., 2008). Thus, managers in the hospitality industry should
know how their young employees evaluate and feel about their workplace.
This way they can invest in improving and maintaining a delightful work
environment.
Lastly, hospitality managers should understand that the effect of
employee voice and delight on satisfaction differs between Gen Y and older
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 19

generations. Even though there were positive impacts of voice and delight on
satisfaction for both age groups, the degrees of the effect were somewhat
different in this study. This shows that workplace policies and environment
need to be flexible to take into account a variety of age groups. For instance,
the mean of Gen Y employees’ delight was lower than that of older generation
employees, but the effect of employee delight on satisfaction was much
greater for Gen Y employees. This finding may mean that even though Gen
Y employees experience trivial delight at work, it may more effectively and
positively influence their satisfaction. Moreover, the next generation of
employees will, in the near future, be joining the hospitality marketplace.
They may have different characteristics from Gen Y. Thus, flexible workplace
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

policies or environment can be a key to bridging future generation gaps and

to satisfying a variety of employee age groups.

Limitations and Future Studies

There are some limitations to this study and some areas for future study. First,
this study was conducted in two hotels in the Midwest. Even though they are
appropriate representations for the purpose of the current study, the research
needs to be replicated by using data from employees in various properties and
locations to improve generalizibility of the study. Considering that the current
study is one of the first empirical investigations to examine the relational
differences between Gen Y and older generation in the hotel industry, sam-
ples from various locations would help the study’s results in establishing a
more solid generalizability.
Second, the current study considered two control variables (work status
and gender) because these may influence employees’ perceptions and atti-
tudes. However, future research may control other factors that influence the
proposed constructs (i.e., employee voice, delight, satisfaction, loyalty, and
turnover intention), such as employment length, job position, and job author-
ity. These considerations would provide more insights regarding how
employee voice and delight influence their satisfaction, loyalty, and turnover
intention and how the impact differs among generations.
Third, future research may include other key variables such as training,
education, professional development, and empowerment related to Gen Y
employee job satisfaction to provide a deeper understanding of this gen-
eration. Many studies suggest that Gen Y employees look for self-develop-
ment work environments, and value learning and advancing their skills
(Beaver & Hutchings, 2005; Eisner, 2005; Lowe et al., 2008). Gen Yers
prefer an educational atmosphere that continuously provides learning
opportunities and they have a desire to continue gaining knowledge in
the workplace (Martin, 2005; Meier & Crocker, 2010). In fact, the education
level of Gen Y in the current workforce is higher than that of previous
 20 M. Kim et al.

generations. They are the most highly literate and educated generation
(Josiam et al., 2009; Lowe et al., 2008; Yeaton, 2008). Hence, an important
motivator for Gen Y employees may be intellectual challenges (Hurst &
Good, 2009). Flowers et al. (2010) underscored the idea that a lack of
training is a major reason why the current management system fails to
manage Gen Y employees. Additionally, organizational policies such as
employee empowerment and perceived support from supervisors or cow-
orkers will be vitally linked to the job satisfaction of Gen Y employees.
Indeed, Gen Y employees are most productive when supervisors treat
employees with respect and provide frequent and honest feedback about
their job performance (Flowers et al., 2010).
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

Considering these characteristics, future research may include additional

variables such as flexibility, training opportunity, job policies (e.g., employee
empowerment, perceived support from supervisors or co-workers), and com-
petence as factors that influence their satisfaction.
Lastly, even though our study focuses on generational differences among
hotel employees, it will be meaningful to conduct research pertaining to
cultural differences in the relationships among employee delight, voice, satis-
faction, loyalty, and turnover intent. The effect of employee voice and delight
on satisfaction can differ among various cultures because of different cultural
backgrounds and characteristics (e.g., power distance, individualism/collecti-
vism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, etc.).

REFERENCES

Alati, D. (2004). Retention race. Incentive, 178(5), 6.

Allen, P. (2004). Welcoming Y. Benefits Canada, 28(9), 51–56.
Aziri, B. (2011). Job satisfaction: A literature review. Management Research and
Practice, 3(4), 77–86.
Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1998). Employee behavior in a service environment: A
model and test of potential differences between men and women. The Journal of
Marketing, 62, 77–91. doi:10.2307/1252162
Back, K.-J., Lee, C.-K., & Abbott, J. (2011). Internal relationship marketing: Korean
casino employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Cornell Hos-
pitality Quarterly, 52(2), 111–124. doi:10.1177/1938965510370742
Barron, P. (2008). Education and talent management: Implications for the hospitality
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20
(7), 730–742. doi:10.1108/09596110810897583
Barron, P., Maxwell, G., Broadbridge, A., & Ogden, S. (2007). Careers in hospitality
management: Generation Y’s experiences and perceptions. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, 14(2), 119–128. doi:10.1375/jhtm.14.2.119
Beaver, G., & Hutchings, K. (2005). Training and developing an age diverse work-
force in SMEs: The need for a strategic approach. Education+Training, 47(8/9),
592–604.
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 21

Berman, B. (2005). How to delight your customers. California Management Review,

48(1), 129–151. doi:10.2307/41166331
Bigné, J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience: An analysis of
pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 26(6), 833–844.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2004.05.006
Bloemer, J., & Odekerken-Schröder, G. (2006). The role of employee relationship
proneness in creating employee loyalty. International Journal of Bank Market-
ing, 24(4), 252–264. doi:10.1108/02652320610671342
Bowden, J. L. H., & Dagger, T. S. (2011). To delight or not to delight? An investigation
of loyalty formation in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 20(5), 501–524. doi:10.1080/19368623.2011.570637
Broadbridge, A. M., Maxwell, G. A., & Ogden, S. M. (2007). 13_2_30: Experiences,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

perceptions and expectations of retail employment for Generation Y. Career

Development International, 12(6), 523–544. doi:10.1108/13620430710822001
Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure and child well‐being: The significance of
parental cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 351–367.
doi:10.1111/jomf.2004.66.issue-2
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cairncross, G., & Buultjens, J. (2007). Gen Y and innovator employers in the Aus-
tralian tourism and hospitality industry. Journal of Economic and Social Policy,
12(1), 1.
Carmeli, A., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Exploring turnover intentions among three profes-
sional groups of employees. Human Resource Development International, 9(2),
191–206. doi:10.1080/13678860600616305
Chacko, H. E., Williams, K., & Schaffer, J. (2012). A conceptual framework for
attracting generation Y to the hotel industry using a seamless hotel organizational
structure. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 11(2), 106–122.
doi:10.1080/15332845.2012.648843
Chang, E. (1999). Career commitment as a complex moderator of organizational
commitment and turnover intention. Human Relations, 52(10), 1257–1278.
doi:10.1177/001872679905201002
Chang, C. C., Chiu, C. M., & Chen, C. A. (2010). The effect of TQM practices on
employee satisfaction and loyalty in government. Total Quality Management,
21(12), 1299–1314.
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Teacher’s corner: Testing measurement
invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 471–492. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1203_7
Chen, P.-J., & Choi, Y. (2008). Generational differences in work values: A study of
hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 20(6), 595–615. doi:10.1108/09596110810892182
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for
testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplin-
ary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Choi, Y., & Dickson, D. R. (2009). A case study into the benefits of management
training programs: Impacts on hotel employee turnover and satisfaction level.
 22 M. Kim et al.

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 9(1), 103–116.

doi:10.1080/15332840903336499
Cole, M. S., & Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and
commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational
hierarchy matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 585–605. doi:10.1002/
(ISSN)1099-1379
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). Full-time versus part-time employees: Under-
standing the links between work status, the psychological contract, and attitudes.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(2), 279–301. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1857
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of
Management Review, 18(3), 397–428.
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to

the implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3), 419–442.
doi:10.1177/0018726700533006
Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing generation Y. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70
(4), 4–15.
Finn, A. (2005). Reassessing the foundations of customer delight. Journal of Service
Research, 8(2), 103–116. doi:10.1177/1094670505279340
Flowers, W., Jones, E., & Hogan, R. L. (2010). Employee development approach for
Generation Yers: A conceptual framework. Journal of Global Business Manage-
ment, 6(1), 1–8.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18, 382–388. doi:10.2307/3150980
Francis-Smith, J. (2004). Surviving and thriving in the multigenerational workplace.
Journal Record, 1, 1.
Furunes, T., & Mykletun, R. J. (2005). Age management in Norwegian hospitality
businesses. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(2), 116–134.
doi:10.1080/15022250510014390
Gakovic, A., & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Psychological contract breach as a source of strain
for employees. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(2), 235–246. doi:10.1023/
A:1027301232116
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale develop-
ment incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing
Research, 186–192.
Ghiselli, R., La Lopa, J., & Bai, B. (2001). Job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and turnover
intent among food-service managers. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Admin-
istration Quarterly, 42(2), 28–37.
Grønholdt, L., & Martensen, A. (2001). Linking employee loyalty, customer loyalty and
profitability. In Business excellence: What is to be done. Proceedings of the 6th
World Congress for Total Quality Management, Saint Petersburg, Russia, 20–22
June 2001. (Vol. 1, pp. 332–339).
Gursoy, D., Maier, T. A., & Chi, C. G. (2008). Generational differences: An examination
of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 448–458. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2007.11.002
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 23

Herington, C., & Weaven, S. (2009). Implementing the marketing concept in travel
organizations: The important moderating influence of perceived organizational
support. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18, 692–717.
doi:10.1080/19368620903170232
Hibbard, J. D., Kumar, N., & Stern, L. W. (2001). Examining the impact of destructive
acts in marketing channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1),
45–61. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.1.45.18831
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). The next 20 years: How customer and workforce
attitudes will evolve. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 41–52.
Hurst, J. L., & Good, L. K. (2009). Generation Y and career choice: The impact of retail
career perceptions, expectations and entitlement perceptions. Career Develop-
ment International, 14(6), 570–593. doi:10.1108/13620430910997303
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

Ito, M., & Okabe, D. (2005). Technosocial situations: Emergent structurings of mobile
email use, mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jang, J., & George, R. T. (2012). Understanding the influence of polychronicity on job
satisfaction and turnover intention: A study of non-supervisory hotel employees.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 588–595. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2011.08.004
Johnston, M. W., Parasuraman, A., Futrell, C. M., & Black, W. C. (1990). A longitudinal
assessment of the impact of selected organizational influences on salespeople’s
organizational commitment during early employment. Journal of Marketing
Research, 27, 333–344. doi:10.2307/3172590
Josiam, B. M., Crutsinger, C., Reynolds, J. S., Dotter, T. V., Thozhur, S., Baum, T., &
Devine, F. G. (2009). An empirical study of the work attitudes of Generation Y
college students in the USA: The case of hospitality and merchandising under-
graduate majors. Journal of Services Research, 9(1), 5–30.
Karatepe, O. M. (2011). Procedural justice, work engagement, and job outcomes:
Evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20,
855–878. doi:10.1080/19368623.2011.577688
Karl, K., Peluchette, J., Hall-Indiana, L., & Harland, L. (2005). Attitudes toward work-
place fun: A three sector comparison. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 12(2), 1–17. doi:10.1177/107179190501200201
Kerslake, P. (2005). Words from the Ys. New Zealand Management, 52(4), 44–46.
Kim, H., Knight, D. K., & Crutsinger, C. (2009). Generation Y employees’ retail work
experience: The mediating effect of job characteristics. Journal of Business
Research, 62(5), 548–556. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.06.014
Kim, M., Vogt, C. A., & Knutson, B. J. (2013). Relationships among customer satisfac-
tion, delight, and loyalty in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research. doi:10.1177/1096348012471376.
Kim, W. G., & Brymer, R. A. (2011). The effects of ethical leadership on manager job
satisfaction, commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm performance. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 1020–1026. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2011.03.008
Kogan, M. (2007). Human resources management: bridging the gap. Retrieved from
http://www.govexec.com/magazine/magazine-human-resources-management/
2001/09/bridging-the-gap/9752
 24 M. Kim et al.

Kumar, A., & Lim, H. (2008). Age differences in mobile service perceptions: Compar-
ison of Generation Y and baby boomers. Journal of Services Marketing, 22(7),
568–577. doi:10.1108/08876040810909695
Kumar, A., Olshavsky, R. W., & King, M. F. (2001). Exploring alternative antecedents
of customer delight. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and
Complaining Behavior, 14, 14–26.
Lam, T., Baum, T., & Pine, R. (2001). Study of managerial job satisfaction in Hong
Kong’s Chinese restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 13(1), 35–42. doi:10.1108/09596110110365634
Lee, H.-R., Murrmann, S. K., Murrmann, K. F., & Kim, K. (2010). Organizational justice
as a mediator of the relationships between leader-member exchange and
employees’ turnover intentions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Manage-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

ment, 19(2), 97–114. doi:10.1080/19368620903455237

Lings, I. N. (2004). Internal market orientation: Construct and consequences. Journal
of Business Research, 57(4), 405–413. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00274-6
Liu, Y., Prati, L. M., Perrewé, P. L., & Brymer, R. A. (2010). Individual differences in
emotion regulation, emotional experiences at work, and work‐related outcomes:
A two‐study investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6),
1515–1538. doi:10.1111/jasp.2010.40.issue-6
Long, C. S., & Thean, L. Y. (2011). Relationship between leadership style, job satisfac-
tion and employees’ turnover intention: A literature review. Research Journal of
Business Management, 5(3), 91–100. doi:10.3923/rjbm.2011.91.100
Lowe, D., Levitt, K. J., & Wilson, T. (2008). Solutions for retaining Generation Y
employees in the workplace. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 39(2),
46–52. doi:10.1109/EMR.2011.5876174
Lyons, M., Quinn, A., & Sumsion, J. (2005). Males in children’s services: Attitudes,
employment, practice and policy. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(1),
6–13.
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers
need to know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1),
39–44. doi:10.1108/00197850510699965
McGuire, D., By, R. T., & Hutchings, K. (2007). Towards a model of human
resource solutions for achieving intergenerational interaction in organisations.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(8), 592–608. doi:10.1108/
03090590710833651
Meier, J., & Crocker, M. (2010). Generation Y in the workforce: Managerial challenges.
The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 6(1), 68–78.
Mobley, W. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction
and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237–240.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.62.2.237
Moschis, G. P., Lee, E., Mathur, A., & Strautman, J. (2000). The maturing marketplace:
Buying habits of baby boomers and their parents. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages:
The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover (Vol. 153). New
York, NY: Academic press.
 Employee Voice, Delight and Satisfaction 25

Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer delight: Foundations, findings,
and managerial insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 311–336. doi:10.1016/
S0022-4359(97)90021-X
Pagani, M. (2004). Determinants of adoption of third generation mobile multimedia
services. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 46–59. doi:10.1002/dir.20011
Patah, M. O. R. A., Zain, R. A., Abdullah, A., & Radzi, S. M. (2009). An empirical
investigation into the influences of psychological empowerment and overall job
satisfaction on employee loyalty: The case of Malaysian front office receptionists.
Journal of Tourism, Hospitality & Culinary Arts, 1(3), 43–62.
Saba, J. (2006). Teenage wasteland. Restaurant Business, 105(2), 13–14.
Schummer, B. (2007). Cognitive and affective antecedents of and behavioral inten-
tions connected to delight, satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and outrage in the Dutch
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

academic education market (Graduate Thesis).

Silvestro, R. (2002). Dispelling the modern myth: Employee satisfaction and loyalty
drive service profitability. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 22(1), 30–49.
Simons, T., & Hinkin, T. (2001). The effect of employee turnover on hotel profits: A
test across multiple hotels. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 42(4), 65–69. doi:10.1016/S0010-8804(01)80046-X
Solnet, D., & Hood, A. (2008). Generation Y as hospitality employees: Framing a
research agenda. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 15(1), 59–68.
doi:10.1375/jhtm.15.59
Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in
cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–107.
doi:10.1086/209528
Susskind, A. M., Borchgrevink, C. P., Michele Kacmar, K., & Brymer, R. A. (2000).
Customer service employees’ behavioral intentions and attitudes: An examination
of construct validity and a path model. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 19(1), 53–77. doi:10.1016/S0278-4319(99)00030-4
Szamosi, L. T. (2006). Just what are tomorrow’s SME employees looking for? Educa-
tion + Training, 48(8/9), 654–665. doi:10.1108/00400910610710074
Timo, N., & Davidson, M. (2005). A survey of employee relations practices and
demographics of MNC chain and domestic luxury hotels in Australia. Employee
Relations, 27(2), 175–192. doi:10.1108/01425450510572694
Torres, E. N., & Kline, S. (2006). From satisfaction to delight: A model for the hotel
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
18(4), 290–301. doi:10.1108/09596110610665302
United States Census Bureau. (2011). 2010 Census Briefs-Age and sex composition:
2010. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/generations-work-
place-united-states-canada
Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Lucero, M. (2002). Ethical context, organizational commit-
ment, and person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 349–360.
doi:10.1023/A:1021203017316
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In
pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L.
L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17,
pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
 26 M. Kim et al.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence
of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41,
108–119. doi:10.2307/256902
Van Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence
and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management
Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392. doi:10.1111/joms.2003.40.issue-6
Varey, R. J., & Lewis, B. R. (1999). A broadened conception of internal marketing.
European Journal of Marketing, 33(9/10), 926–944. doi:10.1108/
03090569910285869
Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The dimensionality of consumption emotion
patterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 84–91.
doi:10.1086/jcr.1991.18.issue-1
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 02:45 15 October 2015

Williams, L. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1989). Longitudinal field methods for studying
reciprocal relationships in organizational behavior research: Toward improved
causal analysis. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11(2), 247–292.
Woods, R. H. (1997). Human resource management. Lansing, MI: Educational Insti-
tute, American Hotel & Motel Association.
Yavas, U., Karatepe, O. M., & Babakus, E. (2013). Correlates of nonwork and work
satisfaction among hotel employees: Implications for managers. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 22(4), 375–406. doi:10.1080/19368623.2012.667596
Yeaton, K. (2008). Recruiting and managing the ‘Why?’ generation: Gen Y. CPA
Journal, 78(4), 68.
Yoo, B. (2002). Cross‐group comparisons: A cautionary note. Psychology and Market-
ing, 19(4), 357–368. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6793
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encoura-
ging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.
doi:10.2307/3069410